Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Andy Burnham) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals in Great Britain —2004 is being published as a Command Paper today. Copies will be placed in the House Library.
	This annual report meets the requirement in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to keep Parliament informed about the use of animals for experimental or other purposes. It also forms the basis for meeting periodic reporting requirements at EU level. The format and content of future reports has recently being reviewed by the Animals Procedures Committee and I hope to be able to respond to its report shortly.
	The report shows an overall increase over last year of 2.3 per cent in the number of procedures undertaken. The total number of procedures was 2.85 million, an increase of 63,000 over the previous year. Although this is the highest total since 1992, it does not necessarily signal an established upward trend in animal use. The overall level of scientific procedures is determined by a number of factors, including the economic climate and global trends in scientific endeavour.
	Non-toxicological procedures accounted for about 85 per cent of the procedures carried out in 2004. These included studies for fundamental biological or applied research in human and veterinary medicine, with the main areas of use being for immunological studies, pharmaceutical research and development, and cancer research.
	Procedures for toxicological purposes accounted for the remaining 15 per cent of all procedures. About 70 per cent of these were for testing the safety and efficacy of new drugs and medicines.
	In keeping with previous years, those procedures which used mice or rats (or other rodents) were the great majority at 85 per cent. Those using fish amounted to 7 per cent and those using birds, 4 per cent. The total of all procedures using dogs, cats, horses and non-human primates—that is, those species offered special protection by the Act—was less than 1 per cent of the total.
	Genetically normal animals were used in 1,673,000 regulated procedures, representing 59 per cent of all procedures for 2004 (compared with 63 per cent in 2003 and 84 per cent in 1995). Genetically modified animals (nearly all rodents) were used in 914,000 regulated procedures representing, 32 per cent of all procedures for 2004 (compared with 27 per cent in 2003 and 8 per cent in 1995).
	These trends have been evident over recent years, reflecting the changing balance in use between genetically normal and modified animals, and are set to continue as advances in genetic science open up new and promising avenues of research.
	It is important to point out that the Home Office, as regulatory authority under the 1986 Act, does not control the overall amount of animal research and testing which takes place, but seeks to minimise the numbers of animals used for justifiable purposes. We ensure, in carrying out our licensing function, that the provisions of the Act are rigorously applied in each programme of work. All animal use must be justified, and for each particular programme of work, the number of animals used and the suffering caused must be minimised.
	Further information on the annual statistics 2004 may be found on the Home Office website at www.scienceandresearch.homeoffice.gov.uk/animal-research/.

Lord Rooker: My honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Don Touhig) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The new rates of war pensions and allowances proposed from April 2006 are set out in the tables below. The annual uprating of war pensions and allowances for 2006 will take place from the week beginning 10 April.
	
		War Pensions Rates
		
			  Rates Rates 
			 (Weekly rates unless otherwise shown) 2005 2006 
			 WAR PENSIONS 
			 Disablement Pension (100% rates) 
			 officer (£ per annum) 6,851.00 7,034.00 
			 other ranks 131.30 134.80 
			 Age allowances 
			 40%–50% 8.80 9.05 
			 over 50% but not over 70% 13.50 13.85 
			 over 70% but not over 90% 19.25 19.75 
			 over 90% 27.00 27.70 
			 Disablement gratuity 
			 specified minor injury (minimum) 835.00 858.00 
			 specified minor injury (maximum) 6,243.00 6,412.00 
			 unspecified minor injury (minimum) 345.00 354.00 
			 unspecified minor injury (maximum) 8,118.00 8,337.00 
			 Unemployability allowance 
			 Personal 81.15 83.35 
			 adult dependency increase 45.70 46.95 
			 increase for first child 10.60 10.90 
			 increase for subsequent children 12.50 12.85 
			 Invalidity allowance 
			 higher rate 16.05 16.50 
			 middle rate 10.30 10.60 
			 lower rate 5.15 5.30 
			 Constant attendance allowance 
			 exceptional rate 99.20 101.80 
			 intermediate rate 74.40 76.35 
			 full day rate 49.60 50.90 
			 part-day rate 24.80 25.45 
			 Comforts allowance 
			 higher rate 21.20 21.80 
			 lower rate 10.60 10.90 
			 Mobility supplement 47.25 48.55 
			 Allowance for lowered standard of   occupation (maximum) 49.52 50.84 
			 Therapeutic earnings limit 4,056.00 4,212.00 
			 Exceptionally severe disablement   allowance 49.60 50.90 
			 Severe disablement occupational   allowance 24.80 25.45 
			 Clothing allowance (£ per annum) 169.00 174.00 
			 Education allowance (£ per annum)   (maximum) 120.00 120.00 
			 War widow(er)s' pension (further   details in schedule WWP)  
			 Widow(er)s—private 99.50 102.20 
			 Widow(er)s' (other ranks) 99.50 102.20 
			 Widow(er)—Officer (£ pa maximum) 6,132.00 6,298.00 
			 Childless widow(er)s' u-40   (other ranks) 23.85 24.49 
			 Childless widow(er)s' u-40   (Officer maximum £s pa) 6,132.00 6,298.00 
			 Supplementary Pension 66.62 68.42 
			 Age allowance 
			 (a)   age 65 to 69 11.40 11.70 
			 (b)   age 70 to 79 21.80 22.40 
			 (c)   age 80 and over 32.35 33.20 
			 Children's allowance 
			 Increase for first child 15.65 16.05 
			 Increase for subsequent children 17.50 17.95 
			 Orphan's pension 
			 Increase for first child 17.80 18.30 
			 Increase for subsequent children 19.55 20.10 
			 Unmarried dependant living as spouse   (maximum) 97.15 99.85 
			 Rent allowance (maximum) 37.55 38.55 
			 Adult orphan's pension (maximum) 76.45 78.50

Lord Rooker: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Shaun Woodward) has made the following Statement.
	Today I have placed in the Libraries of the House copies of the consultation report on the integrated impact assessment (IIA) of the Government's proposals for the reform of water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland, known as the Water Reform Programme. This also includes the final equality impact assessment and final regulatory impact assessment.
	Consultation on the draft IIA took place from 29 November 2004 until 4 March 2005. As part of the IIA process a number of impact assessments were carried out on the policy proposals, drawing upon available quantitative and qualitative evidence. Assessments carried out included human rights, health, equality, new targeting social need (TSN), regulatory impacts and rural proofing.
	The consultation report I am publishing today summarises and responds to the comments made on the various IIA impact assessments and on the water reform proposals generally.
	The Government have listened carefully to what has been said throughout the consultation period and has noted the substantial level of opposition to the proposals, particularly the introduction of domestic water and sewerage charges. However, the Government have heard nothing to suggest there is a realistic alternative to the water reform programme, which is needed urgently to:
	improve the delivery, efficiency and quality of service currently provided to the public in ways that would not be possible while water service remains in central government;
	provide a sustained and reliable means of financing future investment in water and sewerage services; and
	release resources for allocation to other public services, up to £300 million by the end of the decade, in addition to the borrowing power in the reinvestment and reform initiative which is currently delivering £200 million of capital investment in Northern Ireland's public services every year.
	The Government have not heard a realistic alternative to increasing what people in Northern Ireland pay in local taxes and charges, compared with the position in Great Britain, as a vital step that must be taken if Northern Ireland is to have world class public services. In Great Britain average household contributions (including water bills) are £1,200 to £1,300, whereas in Northern Ireland they are £550. The Government therefore remain committed to the introduction of the water reform programme but, in response to the consultation, with revised or new policy in two key areas.
	The strongest criticism of the original proposals was that the new domestic charges would be neither fair nor affordable, particularly for those on low incomes.
	The Government understand these criticisms. The introduction of the new charges has been deferred until April 2007, partly to allow more time to ensure change is properly managed. However in view of their impact, the Government still intend to phase the new charges in over a three-year period, with households paying one-third of the full charge in 2007–08, two-thirds in 2008–09 and the full amount in 2009–10. The changes to the non-domestic charging regime will be introduced on the same basis.
	Water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland are not yet of as high a standard as those in England, Scotland and Wales, reflecting the lower levels of investment over many years and lower levels of efficiency. The gap in standards is being closed rapidly in Northern Ireland with new investment of £1.1 billion in the period 2003 to 2008. However, in recognition of the gaps that remain, and the burden that the introduction of the new charges may cause, the Government intend to set the new household charges during the three-year period to 2009–10 to achieve the average level of charges that will apply in England and Wales in 2009–10. A detailed charging scheme will be published in late 2006. A first periodic price determination conducted by the new economic regulator is planned to be concluded in 2009. This determination will set tariffs for 2010–11 onwards.
	The three-year phasing-in period to 2009–10 will provide an opportunity for the government-owned company (to be known as Northern Ireland Water Limited) to continue the delivery of the ongoing investment programmes that should bring services up to necessary standards both in terms of water quality and wastewater treatment. Progress has also been made in the past three years to improve efficiency levels. However there remains a gap in comparison with performance in England, Scotland and Wales, reflecting the exposure of companies in Great Britain to commercial pressures and their greater freedoms and flexibilities. The three-year transitional period will allow the company time to deliver a demanding efficiency programme to bring down substantially the cost of water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland in line with best practice in Great Britain. This will be a major and testing challenge for the new company and its workforce.
	A strategic financial review has been completed to provide advice to Government on issues such as the company's financial structure, efficiency, corporate governance and regulatory arrangements. This review, together with the Government's conclusions on its recommendations, will be published shortly.
	The Government consider that phasing charges in over three years, and setting them at levels equivalent to the average in England and Wales during this transitional period, is fair to the people of Northern Ireland and is also fair to other taxpayers and water charge-payers elsewhere the United Kingdom.
	The greatest concern expressed during the consultation was that the new domestic charges would not be affordable and would create hardship amongst those on low incomes. To ease the transition, and in recognition of the relatively high levels of poverty and disadvantage in Northern Ireland, the Government's broad objective will be to ensure that low-income households, particularly pensioner households, should not need to spend more than 3 per cent of their income on water and sewerage services. To achieve this, a new affordability tariff will be available for those households who are eligible. This tariff will be set at a level equivalent to 3 per cent of the single person's pension credit guarantee as updated by Parliament each year.
	Eligibility for the scheme will be determined through the social security system and not through any new form of means testing. All those who are entitled to housing benefit, rate rebate or the special rate relief scheme currently being developed within the review of rating policy in Northern Ireland will automatically be entitled to the affordability tariff. The cost of the affordability tariff scheme will be met from existing Northern Ireland public expenditure rather than other customers and this scheme will be reviewed after three years.
	The other area where the Government are announcing new policy is on domestic metering.
	The IIA consultation exercise revealed strong views in support of domestic metering but also significant opposition to it. While there are very good environmental reasons for metering, the high cost of metering and the issue of affordability of water charges raise real concerns. Many argued strongly that universal or voluntary metering would penalise large and lower income families.
	In recognition of these conflicting views the Government are setting an objective of a managed long-term transition to widespread domestic metering as a means of meeting long-term environmental and sustainability objectives. This recognises that it will take time to introduce widespread metering given the costs associated with the installation of large numbers of meters. It also recognises that the introduction of metering will need to be managed to mitigate adverse social effects to avoid these, the affordability tariff scheme should virtually eliminate any significant adverse impact that domestic metering might have had on low-income households. The long-term transition will involve a number of steps.
	In the short term, meters will be offered as an option to pensioner households. In practice this will only benefit pensioner households who are not eligible for the affordability tariff, with implementation at a rate of 2,000 to 3,000 households per month. This will further mitigate the negative equality impact on pensioners from the capital value charging regime. Metered charges should be lower than unmeasured charges for most pensioner households whose consumption of water is significantly lower than average households. This will particularly benefit the "asset-rich and income poor". Those opting for meters will be able to revert to an unmeasured charge within 12 months;
	meters will be installed in all new properties and first-time connections and billed on that basis as a practical means of reaching the long-term objective of widespread metering—low income protection would be provided on the same basis as for unmeasured customers;
	where a meter is installed in a property, all subsequent occupiers will be subject to metered charges with no option to revert to an unmeasured charge. However, if the new occupants are eligible for low-income protection their protection would be provided on the same basis as for unmeasured customers; and
	the policy would be subject to a review within two years with a view to extending the domestic metering option to further groups from 2009–10, thus making metering more generally available to customers. However, any such proposals would need to be subject to equality impact screening.
	The Government have taken time to listen carefully to the points made in the consultation. It concludes that there is no realistic alternative to introducing domestic water charges and extending the existing non-domestic charging regime. However the Government have amended their policy and are confident that the balanced package of measures announced today will deliver better water and sewerage services, provide benefits to public services generally in Northern Ireland and do so in a way that is fair, affordable and sustainable.
	The publication of the final IIA, and the announcement of these revised and new policies, closes the consultation on the water reform policy proposals. The next step will be to bring forward draft legislation reflecting these proposals. This is planned for spring 2006.

Baroness Amos: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	Since my Statement of 11 October, further assessments in southern Africa have identified an additional 1.4 million people in Malawi, Zambia and Mozambique likely to face food shortages in the period up to April 2006. This brings the total numbers in need of assistance to over 11.4 million in Zimbabwe, Malawi, Zambia, Mozambique, Lesotho and Swaziland. This could rise as further reassessments take place, particularly in Zimbabwe.
	The Scale of the Problem
	Country assessments are carried out by national committees and are co-ordinated regionally by the Southern African Development Community (SADC). They consider whether households will be able to access their normal food requirements between harvests. Assessment reports can be found at the website of the Southern African Development Community at www.sadc.int. The figures include those with potential food shortages ranging from 1 per cent to over 80 per cent of their normal food requirements.
	The breakdown by country is as follows:
	Zimbabwe: The national assessment was formally released on 17 November and indicates that 2.88 million people will face food shortages, assuming stable maize prices. However, maize prices have risen significantly and, while hyper-inflation in Zimbabwe makes it difficult to assess affordability, it is possible that as many as 5 million people face food shortages. The underlying causes remain a combination of erratic rains, HIV/AIDS and bad governance. The World Food Programme, with support from DfID, has been providing food aid for 1 million vulnerable people, mainly children, and plans to scale this up to cover 3 million people over the next few months, and other donors are distributing to smaller groups. The World Food Programme have also now signed a memorandum of understanding with the Government guaranteeing humanitarian access and freedom from political interference in their humanitarian operations through the role of NGOs as implementing partners.
	DfID has committed over £1 million in response to the Government of Zimbabwe's forced clearance of unauthorised dwellings earlier this year, Operation Murambatsvina ("clean up"), which displaced or destroyed the livelihoods of 700,000 people. The Zimbabwean Government have now reversed their refusal to accept international assistance to provide shelter. However, the UN and donors have not yet agreed with the Government on acceptable and equitable mechanisms for providing that aid. In the mean time, UN and non-governmental agencies continue to operate relief programmes reaching 40,000 affected households, including those affected by HIV and AIDS, with food, blankets, medical care and other essential items. These issues were being discussed in Zimbabwe during the visit there this week by the UN Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Jan Egeland.
	Malawi: The latest assessment indicates that up to 4.85 million people face food shortages. The Government and the World Food Programme have started a co-ordinated emergency programme targeting the 2.7 million most vulnerable people and plans are in place to reach all of those facing food shortages in the period leading up to the harvest in March/April 2006. A UN appeal for $88 million was launched in September covering food aid and distribution of seeds and fertiliser. This was later revised downwards to $74 million, of which $32 million has been pledged so far, with a further $68 million contributed outside the appeal. The UK Government contributed £10.2 million before the appeal was launched and £5 million in October in response to the appeal. We will contribute a further £3 million to help respond to the increased needs this week, bringing our total contribution to £18.2 million (about $32 million) making the UK the largest contributor to the relief effort in Malawi this year.
	Zambia: The latest assessment indicates that 1.4 million people in the southern, western and eastern provinces will face food shortages before the next harvest in February and March 2006. The Government have now requested assistance. Food distributions by the World Food Programme, the Government of Zambia and an NGO consortium are increasing in response to this and the UK have this week committed an additional £4 million.
	Mozambique: The latest assessment indicates that about 800,000 people will face food shortages, mostly in the south of the country. The World Food Programme continues to distribute food aid to some of those worst affected and the Government have established a range of safety nets, such as food for work programmes and free or subsidised seed distribution so that the poorest households have enough seeds to plant for next year.
	Lesotho: Assessments in Lesotho have not changed. About 440,000 people could face food shortages. These are virtually all in households that suffer from chronic food insecurity. The Government are responding through safety nets, including a recently introduced old age pension.
	Swaziland: Assessments in Swaziland have not changed. About 225,000 people could face food shortages in households that suffer from chronic food insecurity. As in Lesotho, other responses to chronic hunger, apart from food aid, are being encouraged, such as provision of seeds and fertiliser to poorer households.
	What are the UK Government doing?
	In response to this crisis, the UK Government have now allocated over £64 million in humanitarian assistance for the region this year. Some of this has been channelled through UN agencies and some has gone through governments or NGOs. The breakdown of our commitments so far this year is as follows:
	Zimbabwe: £40 million covering relief programmes for up to 3 million people provided through non-government channels, including contributions to the World Food Programme, HIV/AIDS programmes and responses to those affected by Operation Murambatsvina.
	Malawi: Over £18 million towards the Government's emergency food distribution, helping to purchase maize, options on additional maize, seeds, pulses and oil, support to the Government's logistics and early warning capacity, and support to UNICEF for nutritional surveillance and response. The Government of Malawi's planning for the emergency began in March with help from early pledges from the UK.
	Zambia: Up to £3,430,000 for food aid distribution to 200,000 households and other support through the World Food Programme and other agencies, and £1 million to Oxfam for cash transfers to 14,350 households in Western Province. In addition, we will provide £500,000 for nutritional surveillance and preparedness, and £500,000 for emergency seed distribution.
	Mozambique: £235,000 for provision of seeds to drought affected farmers, using the Ministry of Agriculture's drought mitigation plan.
	Lesotho: £350,000 for distribution of seeds and fertilisers and small-scale livestock interventions for affected households.
	Swaziland: £300,000 for distribution of seeds and fertilisers and other necessary help for vulnerable households.
	I am again urging EU partners to respond speedily to these additional needs and remain in contact with the UN on the international community's response.
	The Wider Challenge
	The crisis has reinforced the need to address the high levels of chronic hunger in southern Africa more effectively and take action to reduce the risk of repeated crises affecting the region. I welcome the recent commitment by European Development Ministers—at the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 21 and 22 November—to support safety nets for the most vulnerable in Africa as well as commitments by the US Government to help break the cycle of hunger in Africa. I intend to work closely with all partners to address these longer-term issues while continuing to tackle emergency food needs effectively. We will continue to monitor the position closely and be ready to take further action if necessary.